Standing Committee C

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill

Alan Hurst: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room.
 Resolved, 
That, if proceedings on the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill are not completed on this day's sitting, the Committee do meet at a date and time to be fixed by the Chairman.—[Mr. Stunell.]

Clause 1 - Purposes of building regulations

Simon Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in
clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert— 
 '( ) In Wales, the National Assembly for Wales may extend the purposes of building regulations.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 24, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end add— 
 '( ) The National Assembly for Wales may insert further subsections for matters in relation to Wales.'.
 Amendment No. 25, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end add— 
 '(xxiif) and any other matter that the National Assembly for Wales may decide as regards Wales.'.
 Amendment No. 26, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert— 
 '( ) In Wales, the power under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 shall be exercised by the National Assembly for Wales.'.
 Amendment No. 27, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 25, at beginning insert 
 'In Wales any further regulation will be made by the National Assembly for Wales unless already prescribed in this subsection.'.
 Amendment No. 28, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(c) The National Assembly for Wales has decided as such with regards to regulations affecting Wales.'.
 Amendment No. 29, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 39, at end insert 
 'And in respect of Wales, any other requirement that the National Assembly for Wales decides.'.
 Amendment No. 31, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 21, leave out from 'England' to end of line.
 Amendment No. 32, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 30, leave out from 'England' to end of line.
 Amendment No. 33, in 
clause 5, page 6, line 1, leave out 'and Wales'.
 Amendment No. 34, in 
clause 5, page 6, line 2, leave out 'and Wales'.
 Amendment No. 35, in 
clause 5, page 6, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(8) In Wales, the power under this section may be exercised by the National Assembly for Wales.'.
 Amendment No. 36, in 
clause 7, page 7, line 2, after 'authorities', insert 'in England'.
 Amendment No. 37, in 
clause 7, page 7, line 4, at end insert— 
 '( ) Planning authorities in Wales may be required by the National Assembly for Wales to set targets in their development plans in respect of the proportion of the buildings' energy requirements on a building site to be supplied by renewable sources.'.
 New clause 3—Building regulations in relation to older dwellings— 
'In section 3 of the Buildings Act 1984 (c.55), after subsection (3) there is inserted— 
 ''(1A) In Wales, the power under subsection (1) will be exercised by the National Assembly for Wales.''.'.

Simon Thomas: May I say at the outset that I am delighted to sit on this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Hurst? I look forward to the Bill going through Committee, amended if necessary, but not so that its purposes are hindered. I look forward to its taking a shape that the Government find acceptable, and so becoming part of the legislation of the United Kingdom.
 As you said, Mr. Hurst, it is convenient for the amendments to be grouped together, as they all relate to devolution, although not necessarily to clause 1. I hope that you will allow a short stand part debate on the principles of the clause, but first I shall focus on the amendments. 
 The background to the amendments is the devolution settlement, and the way in which Bills such as this, which go through the House, have to relate to the National Assembly for Wales. Much of what we will talk about in the framework of the Bill—but not everything—will be devolved to the Assembly in its administrative and regulatory functions. It is important that we take a little time to consider how the Bill will work with the Assembly's aims and objectives on energy efficiency and sustainable development. 
 The context is that the Assembly is the only Executive in the United Kingdom that has written into law the aims of sustainable objectives per se and sustainable development in particular. I welcome the fact that sustainable development is written into clause 1 of this Bill, too. The Assembly has a statutory duty under primary legislation to achieve sustainable development. We must ask ourselves how a Bill with the aim of sustainable development written into it, going through this House, marries in and matches up with the Assembly's sustainable development strategy, which is called ''Living Differently?'' 
 There are two principles behind the amendments. Some deal directly with ensuring that the Bill fits into the current devolution settlement. That is to say, when we talk about the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations, and those regulations' aims of achieving sustainable development and energy efficiency, we must bear in mind that de facto—and de jure, indeed—it is the Assembly that does that in Wales. 
 The second principle behind the amendments relates to functions to do with building regulations that have not yet been devolved to the Assembly. I want to explain my feelings about why that has not happened. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that there is a real reason for trying to achieve that devolution through the Bill. Last year, I served on the Committee considering the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). A similar case arose with that Bill. When it came to Committee, it very much focused on England and could not really work in Wales because the right parts were not there for devolving it. We had a similar debate in that Committee on household recycling targets in Wales and England, and on how they might work. The Bill left Committee, and by Report, the Wales clauses were included. That was done in agreement between the Government and the promoter of the Bill, which worked well for England and Wales. I hope that that will happen as a result of this debate and these amendments. I do not seek to trammel up this Bill. 
 The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) will, at least in principle, support devolution in respect of the Bill, because he has always been a strong supporter of devolution in practice. My purpose is to see how the Minister will respond to these ideas and ensure that when the Bill is enacted it addresses the real needs and abilities of the National Assembly, allowing it to deliver some of the objectives in Wales. 
 Some parts of the building regulations were not transferred to the National Assembly at the time of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the transfer of powers order. There is an interesting little story behind that, which explains how it happened, although I do not know whether it is true. A couple of years ago, I introduced my own private Member's Bill, the Housing (Wales) Bill, which got nowhere at all, other than a bare Second Reading that was deferred. However, I am pleased that the Government have taken up several issues in the current Housing Bill that were contained in my Bill, such as the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, and so forth. My Bill also contained an element about building regulations, and I am trying to put that into this Bill, which has a wonderful long title— 
''To make provision in relation to matters connected with buildings''—
 that is amendable from all sorts of perspectives. 
 The story is as follows. I took on a piece of work for my party and considered housing and housing needs in Wales. I produced a report about three years ago and came across a problem with building regulations. This was in the early days of the National Assembly, and many people were telling us that it could do everything with buildings, including planning, council tax and council housing functions, setting the cost floor and dealing with home renovation grants. In fact, they were saying that it had everything to do with sustainable building except building regulations in many respects. We asked the following question: ''Since building regulations are, as the name suggests, secondary legislation, you would 
 expect the National Assembly to have powers over that, so why did that not happen?''. 
 The story emerged that the Welsh Office had once had responsibility for building regulations. In the 1970s, a civil servant in Cathays Park in Cardiff had responsibility for them. Nobody knew about that then, because it was rather more hidden. There was a Secretary of State for Wales and building regulations were de facto undertaken by the Welsh civil service. However, that civil servant, whose name is no longer available to us, retired, and is now, I am sure, living in happy retirement in Pembrokeshire, or somewhere else. Perhaps that happened in a time of cost-cutting, when the then Secretary of State, whoever that was at the time—because who knows what Government was in power—said, ''Building regulations don't need to be administered in Cardiff. It's easy enough to do it from Whitehall. It can go back. Nobody will notice. There's no problem. I can talk to my colleagues about building regulations.'' When it came to the transfer of powers order and considering all the administrative functions being carried out in Wales—and transferring the powers to the National Assembly as a matter of course—the building regulations were not included and were not transferred, because they were not dealt with by the Welsh Office, as it then was. 
 I hope that hon. Members will see that, as all other parts of housing policy have been devolved to the National Assembly, it is not logical for that little bit of housing policy not to be devolved. I raised that with the Richard commission, which will report at the end of March, and we have encouraging signs that it will recommend not only that these powers be devolved, but the National Assembly have primary legislative powers. We are discussing a Bill that deals directly with building regulations, sustainable development and energy efficiency and therefore deals directly with a core strategy function of the National Assembly. 
 I hope that we will not wait for further devolution but will use the opportunity provided by the Bill to ensure that the National Assembly is properly empowered to carry out its objectives. That is a straightforward and simple thing to do, as it does not interfere with the devolution settlement. I hope that Committee members, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and the Minister will consider the amendments in that light. The ones that deal with building regulations would extend the powers of the Assembly, but would do so correctly and within in the ambit of the Bill. The others, although they may be faulty in drafting, would ensure that the Bill works, and matches and marries with what the National Assembly does. 
 The Assembly is the only devolved body with the aim of sustainable development. This Bill imposes sustainable development—although ''impose'' is not the right word: we should not impose it, but simply live it. The Bill seeks to encourage sustainable development in terms of energy efficiency. We need to ensure that, if we put those two together, they work in the context of Wales. I hope that the Minister can give us the assurances that we need, and that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove considers these issues too. I 
 hope that the amendments, in principle at least, find agreement in the Committee.

Phil Hope: I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Hurst. I hope that we make a thorough assessment of the Bill, proceed with good pace, and arrive at the conclusion that we want. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on getting the Bill into Committee. We had a good Second Reading debate at which many detailed points were raised about the value and importance of the Bill. I have a number of reservations and questions that we will deal with in time, but now I want to express a general welcome. I hope that we can proceed with alacrity.
 The group of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) covers a variety of points, although clearly and predictably they have a common theme. Some of the amendments would allow the National Assembly for Wales to extend the scope and purposes for which building regulations may be made in relation to Wales. They would also provide that, in Wales, the power to make various sorts of building regulation would be exercised by the Assembly. Other amendments in the group would restrict to England the scope of the biennial report to Parliament, which the Secretary of State has to make under clause 5. Finally, the Assembly would be enabled to require local planning authorities to set targets in their development plans relating to the use of renewable energy. 
 I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ceredigion, and two key points should be made. First, under the devolution settlement enshrined in the Government of Wales Act 1998, the National Assembly for Wales exercises ministerial functions transferred to it by Orders in Council. However, the Assembly is not empowered to enact or modify primary legislation. It operates within primary legislation frameworks laid down by the Westminster Parliament. 
 Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 would allow the Assembly to amend the limitations on the power to make building regulations that are laid down in section 1 of the Building Act 1984. Amendment No. 25 would similarly allow the Assembly to amend the list in respect of which regulations may be made, which is set out in schedule 1 to the 1984 Act. Amendment No. 28 would allow the Assembly to disregard the constraints imposed by the Bill on the new scope for requirements to be triggered by a change of occupants of an existing building. Amendment No. 29 seems intended to allow the Assembly to exercise the new power to impose continuing requirements on owners and occupiers of existing buildings, and to do so without any of the restrictions imposed by new section 2A, to be introduced by clause 3. 
 Unfortunately, all those amendments conflict with the principle that the Assembly works within the framework of primary legislation settled by Parliament. Some of the amendments would negate 
 constraints provided for in the Bill on the increased scope for regulations to apply to existing buildings. On that fundamental point alone, I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion agrees not to press his amendments because they contradict the principle that the Assembly works within the framework of primary legislation. 
 The second key point is that the Government of Wales Act 1998 allows for the transfer to the Assembly of the function of making building regulations of all descriptions. Indeed, I am pleased to say that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed to a request from the Welsh Assembly Government for a dialogue in due course on the question of a transfer. I cannot in any way prejudge the outcome of the discussions, but the correct mechanism for transferring the function to the Assembly would be an order under the Government of Wales Act after due consideration and consultation. However, amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and new clause 3 run counter to that basic principle, so I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press them. 
 Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 would confine to England the scope of the reports that the Secretary of State must make to Parliament under clause 5. Amendment No. 35 seems intended to make it clear that the Assembly could or should draw up a corresponding report relating to Wales. In this case, too, the correct approach would be for the function of making the reports to be transferred to the Assembly by an order under the Government of Wales Act if, at a future date, that seemed appropriate. The powers under that Act would be sufficient to allow for modification of the reporting requirement—for example, to replace the duty to lay reports before Parliament with an alternative provision. With that clarification of how the measures might apply, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press those amendments. 
 Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 relate to clause 7, and the hon. Gentleman will know that I have tabled an amendment to remove that clause. Planning authorities do not need powers to set targets relating to renewable energy in development plans: they already have scope to do so. I shall say more about this when we reach clause 7, but planning functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are devolved to the Assembly. However, the principles of the devolution settlement are such that the framework of primary legislation should be the same for England and Wales. 
 Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed with that reply, I hope that he can appreciate why I have to ask him not to press the amendments. It is so that we remain true to the current legislation that applies to the relationship between England and the Westminster Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly.

Andrew Stunell: It is good to serve under your chairmanship for the second time in a week, Mr. Hurst. I very much appreciate the fact that hon. Members have turned out in force on this important topic. Like others, I hope that we can
 proceed expeditiously, so I shall take only a few moments on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion—at least I can say it in English, if not in Welsh.
 I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the Bill. I appreciate his wish for it to make progress, and I understand where he is coming from on the amendments. As he quite properly says, I and other Liberal Democrat Members are strongly in favour of the devolution project, although we do not share his view about separation. However, I must draw his attention to the fact that the Bill takes only a small step towards having sustainable buildings. As I said on Second Reading, it is not the answer to everything, even as far as sustainability goes, and it is certainly not intended to be the Updating Welsh Devolution Bill. 
 The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the long title of the Bill and said that it was about things to do with buildings. Well, of course it has to do with buildings, but it does not relate to whole countries. In the spirit of what I hope will be an amicable and fruitful debate, I suggest that the amendments are, frankly, somewhat out of place and I hope that he will not delay the progress of the remainder of the Bill, which I think he agrees is worthy of support, by pressing them.

Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for taking the time to consider how the amendments would fit in the Bill. I am also pleased that the Minister agreed with me that there were two sets of amendments, some changing the current devolution settlement and others relating more to current workings. I was pleased to hear that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has now agreed to hold a dialogue with the National Assembly. A bit of the devolution settlement is missing, and although this may not be the appropriate vehicle for plugging that gap, I am pleased that the omission has been acknowledged in both the ODPM and the National Assembly. I have been banging on about this for three or four years now.
 I am not sure why we cannot have a report on these matters that is specific to Wales. I should like to return to that on Report. Wales has its own sustainable development strategy and its own energy efficiency ideas. In addition to a report on England and Wales to Parliament, there should be a separate report on Welsh issues to the Assembly, reflecting what we do on recycling and renewable energy. There is nothing new in that idea, albeit this may not be the way to achieve it. I should like the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to consider how we can improve accountability to the National Assembly in the Bill. 
 In the light of the constructive comments on at least some of the amendments, and because I want the Bill to take that step forward on the wider issues of energy efficiency, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Kidney: I welcome the fact that sustainability is being put at the heart of the aims of building regulations. Hon. Members have recently received the Minister's regulatory impact assessment, which makes clear the Government's determination to use the powers in the Bill to raise environmental standards and to put sustainability at the heart of future building work. Can he confirm that that is his intention? Will he undertake to draw to the attention of his sustainable building task group the progress on the Bill so that it takes account of the powers that it will confer by the time it makes its recommendations?

Joan Walley: I, too, welcome the opportunity to support the Bill in every way possible. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), I should like to ask the Minister to give an undertaking. Will the task group look carefully at the needs of people with disability and the way that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applies here? When we look at new building regulations with adaptations for new house building, we must ensure that those houses are fully accessible to people with disability.

John Hayes: May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hurst? I know that our proceedings will be as civilised as every other aspect of your parliamentary work.
 We must put on record the importance of the Bill in highlighting significant issues in respect of the sustainability of buildings. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has done the House a service in taking the Bill thus far and allowing us to explore important issues relating to sustainability and security and the impact of housing on a range of other matters, such as health and antisocial behaviour issues. I do not imagine that our deliberations will last long, so during the course of this short but important scrutiny of the Bill, I hope that we will have a brief opportunity to explore some of those specific areas, which are highlighted in clause 1, in terms of their impact on current legislation. 
 So that they can do the necessary research, which will benefit our consideration, I suggest that Committee members have a close look at the work of Professor Alice Coleman, who has done a great deal of work on the relationship between building design, sustainability and community issues, and in particular the relationship between housing and law and order, antisocial behaviour and security, all of which are dealt with in the Bill. 
 At this early juncture, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. It is a matter for discussion whether the Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for achieving some of his noble objectives or whether amending other legislation would be a more appropriate way of dealing with the issues. I am mindful that we have just debated the Housing Bill, which deals with these matters in detail, at considerable length. There is a new housing health and safety rating system, which is the combination of a consideration of the material condition of buildings 
 and the nature of their occupiers. It tackles some of the issues raised in this Bill but not all of them. However, it is the interface between the new system and what the hon. Gentleman proposes that raises the question whether there are other means of providing incentives for home owners and landlords to encourage a more sustainable approach in ways that do not require the heavy hand of regulation. 
 I do not say that regulation is unnecessary, but we have to decide when to regulate and when to encourage, and I am not sure that the Bill has got the balance right. We will be able to explore that in detail when we have discussed clause 1, which sets us on course to debate the rest of the proposals. 
 The Bill makes some important points about security and sustainability. I shall speak about issues related to vulnerability and poverty, which are at the heart of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who is a great champion of matters associated with warm homes, will no doubt refer to his crusade against fuel poverty, in which I join him with enthusiasm, as he knows. I am delighted to be able to play a small part in that process, and I hope we will be able to explore the issues as we continue our discussions.

Helen Clark: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on bringing the Bill to its Committee stage and the WWF on its effective and punchy sustainable homes campaign. If everyone on the planet consumed natural resources and polluted the environment as we do in the United Kingdom, living up to the ''polluter pays'' principle, we would need three planets to support us.
 I welcome the clause. There are many examples of best practice in sustainable housing and the best known is the BedZed housing development in Beddington, near Sutton. However, the problem is that when building new homes, the excellent examples are not the rule but the exception. Only through the changes to the building regulations proposed in the Bill can we ensure that when the significant amount of new housing that is needed is built, sustainability is adopted as best practice. That will ensure that it is not only best practice but common practice, too. 
 I welcome the clause, and the Bill.

Phil Hope: It is good that so many enthusiasts are present in the Committee, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said and as contributions to the debate have shown. The Government support clause 1, which had unanimous support on both sides of the House on Second Reading.
 We can currently make regulations dealing with the conservation of fuel and power and preventing the waste and misuse of water. We have used those powers to make regulations that require buildings and fittings, such as boilers and windows, to be more energy efficient. However, they do not allow us fully to address environmental protection and sustainable 
 development by, for example, taking measures on controlling greenhouse gas emissions from buildings or the recycling of building materials. The new powers in the Bill will allow us to do so. I might add that current powers do not allow us to address crime prevention and security through building regulations. The Bill gives us that power, so that better locks on doors and windows could be required, for example. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned the regulatory impact assessment, which I hope all hon. Members have received. In response, I should point out that all the provisions relating to new powers to make building regulations provide enabling powers, which is why the RIA talks about only the cost of producing the biennial report. The Bill itself does not impose any new burdens on businesses, charities, voluntary organisations or the public, and it will not do so until regulations are made under its powers. As we may repeat later, it is not now but when we make regulations under the Bill that there will be a full regulatory impact assessment and consultation.

Brian White: One concern about the enabling powers is that their use could take some time. Will the Minister give an assurance that the regulations will be brought forward as soon as reasonably possible?

Phil Hope: I cannot give any time scales. My hon. Friend will understand that we will consider that matter in a later debate, assuming that the Bill is passed. I can say that we have considered the following options, as described in the regulatory impact assessment: option 1 is to do nothing; option 2 is broadly to follow voluntary guidance; and option 3 is to use the new powers to place statutory requirements on owners of buildings and so on. The Government's preferred option is option 3.
 I think that I am making it clear that we intend to proceed with that approach, but obviously, we will do so only following the widest consultation and assessment of its impact.

John Hayes: There is an option missing from the regulatory impact assessment—for which, incidentally, we are grateful: the design aspects that have an impact on security. As I mentioned earlier, the work of a number of independent experts in this field, such as Professor Alice Coleman of King's college London, suggests that there are fundamental design issues that have an impact on security. Therefore, in guidance at least, the Government should take a decisive position on how they influence design. Once the buildings are built and an estate is established, it is often impossible to reverse some of the intrinsic design features that jeopardise the security of residents.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in support of the Bill in principle, and with some reservations that we will address later. I am pleased that he now wants the Government to issue guidance for designing out crime. Perhaps I should not say so in this context, but it is interesting that at a time when other parts of his party are asking for less regulation and guidance on letting positions, he offers to support further guidance on such matters. However, I will not go down that road. In the spirit of wishing to have
 agreement across the Committee, let me say that I think that his suggestion deserves further attention.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned the particular needs of people with disabilities. She will know that part M of the building regulations deals with access and facilities for disabled people. The Bill allows the new sustainability provisions to be consistent and in parallel with those regulations.

John Hayes: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting his exciting peroration, but I also want to focus on housing for people with special needs and particularly those with disabilities. He will know that there is a widespread view, at least among Opposition Members, that a register of accessible homes would be very helpful, as it would allow for a better match between people with special needs and available housing. The Government have so far resisted that proposal. Will he explain why and tell us what his alternative is? It is a question not of more or less guidance, but of good or bad guidance.

Phil Hope: I do not want to stray too far from the purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has made it clear that although this is an important Bill, it is narrowly prescribed; we are trying to amend the Building Act 1984 to allow us to set building regulations for matters regarding sustainability, crime prevention, the reuse and recycling of materials and demolition. If I strayed on to issues such as a register of homes and accessibility for disabled people, I fear not only that I would incur your wrath, Mr. Hurst, but that I would not find favour among other hon. Members. I will not be tempted down that route, but I log and appreciate the concerns of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that he supports the principles of the Bill. I am grateful for that and I think that it will help this morning's sitting. He also mentioned the wide range of expertise of others in the field, including in design. I want to highlight the work of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, which is a Government body. I have met and well know those involved, who provide excellent support and advice in their own time, using their expertise. I put on record my grateful acknowledgment and thanks to those individuals, who provide Government with essential advice on building regulations. 
 Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) mentioned the WWF's sustainable homes campaign. I was present at the launch of that campaign in the House. It is an ambitious campaign and I wish it well. We are doing our best in Government to respond, and I believe that the Bill will contribute in a major way to the success of that campaign. 
 In general, we are of one mind. There are details to work through and amendments to consider, including those tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, but I hope that, given a fair wind and general support, we can make progress.

Andrew Stunell: Having heard the debate, I feel that I am among friends, but that is a dangerous thing to say. Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill's intention and those who have contributed accept that it is vital. There is a problem in relation to the sustainability and security of buildings, and the Bill provides some of the solution to it. I thank hon. Members who commented on both those aspects of what the Bill tackles.
 It is important to underline a point that the Minister made—the Bill does not impose new requirements on construction, owners or buildings; it opens the door for those changes to be made in future. Those changes will be made in the same way as any other changes to the building regulations: there will be an extensive period of consultation with the industry, putative owners and organisations at the paying end of the equation, and the proposals will return to the House for consideration along with a regulatory impact assessment. There will be opportunities to discuss whether the proposals are proportionate and produce the required results, and whether those results cannot be achieved by other means. 
 I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that regulation is not all that is needed. On Second Reading, I talked about possible financial and fiscal incentives, and a cultural change is also needed. Many of us in this Room may be tuned in to issues about recycling, reuse and the efficient running of homes, but sadly many people are not. Several elements must work together if sustainability is to make an impact. We must remember that 27 per cent. of the United Kingdom's carbon emissions come from homes, never mind the retail and commercial sector. There is a huge amount that could be done and clause 1 lays the foundations for tackling it. 
 Several interesting points have been made. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That is the sort of issue that will be picked up at the next stage, when regulations are considered and consulted on. One has to make sure that, in prescribing or advising that construction should produce one result, some other equally desirable function is not blocked. 
 On Second Reading, we talked about the potential conflict between security against crime and security against fire. The advantage of my Bill is that it would bring the regulation process into one comprehensive place; there would not be one set of people doing things about disability discrimination, another set doing things about fire and a third set concerned with security against crime. With different levels of enforceability, we will be able to bring those things together. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North.

John Hayes: The cohesive approach for which the hon. Gentleman calls needs to be supported with a hierarchy of risk, as he implied but did not state. He is right; sometimes there are conflicting issues associated with design and planning that create different sorts of imperatives. However, that is already heralded. There is a hierarchy of risk in the Government's assessment of housing fitness—a more sophisticated assessment than we have ever had—so the principle of a cohesive
 approach that is also hierarchical in the way in which it analyses risk is already embedded in Government thinking. It should not be too difficult to extend that as he proposes.

Andrew Stunell: I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I have not made too many extravagant claims for my Bill. It is one piece of a jigsaw that must be completed by putting other pieces in place. Without my piece, the jigsaw will not be finished; without other pieces it will not be complete. I hope that we can bring all those things together.
 The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is about housing. All the issues that we have talked about—fire, disability and carbon emissions—are important in the commercial and retail sectors. The largest expansion in carbon emissions at the moment comes from the commercial sector rather than the domestic sector. I will not make a meal of it; I simply say that I believe that the Committee shares my view that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: I would like to make some brief comments on the clause that I also made during the discussions on energy and efficiency in respect of the Housing Bill. It is right to underline them here and to draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister.
 The Government have several instruments for improving our buildings. Improvements in building regulations have been made under this Government, and I congratulate them on that. The Bill helps tremendously in that respect, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on winning pole position in the ballot on private Members' Bills. 
 The decent homes standard is another instrument that the Government use. We are leaving people behind in fuel poverty, despite the fact that we have improved houses up to the decent homes standard both in the private and the social housing sectors. That standard needs reviewing for energy efficiency purposes; it is leaving people behind in fuel poverty. 
 The other two main instruments are contained in the Housing Bill. One relates to houses in multiple occupation, which we will come to again in this Bill; I reserve my comments on those. The other instrument is the new standard for the inspection of unfit houses, which covers not only the health of people living in the houses, but their safety, which is extremely important. 
 There is a lack of consistency between the different instruments that the Government use in improving our homes, such as energy efficiency proposals and the targets put forward by various Acts of Parliament. I draw that to the Minister's attention, and I hope that the Government will examine that lack of consistency, particularly in respect of the decent homes strategy.

John Hayes: I want to reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman has made on other occasions. He describes the lack of consistency between different aspects of Government policy, but he understates it a little. I suspect that he means—and perhaps he will
 intervene if I am wrong—that if the Government apply their standards in terms of warm homes, they will still leave a significant number of people in fuel poverty.
 There is a mismatch between the Government's standards to achieve their targets and an assault on fuel poverty. That is a point that the hon. Gentleman has forcefully made elsewhere. Therefore, the issue is not simply a lack of consistency, but an unwillingness on the Government's part to drive through their intentions with a programme that will eliminate or at least minimise fuel poverty in the way that he and I seek. The Government will not simply miss their targets on fuel poverty; even if they achieve them, many people will still be disadvantaged.

Alan Hurst: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will redirect his comments back to the clause in its entirety.

John Hayes: Of course, that is critical in our consideration of the clause, Mr. Hurst, as you have reminded this Committee and me.
 The clause establishes a range of new considerations about building standards, and we must be mindful of the gaping hole that already exists in those standards in respect of the mismatch between warm home targets and fuel poverty. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East alluded to that issue in his typically polite and understated way. Therefore, this is not a minor indictment against the Minister, but a serious charge. He must answer it for his Government because he does not want to be a Minister who, when he leaves office in a few months time, is remembered as the person who left countless thousands of vulnerable people in desperate fuel poverty. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Contents of building regulations

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(3A) In sub-paragraph (a)(xiv) of that paragraph, at the end insert ''(including equipment for monitoring and measuring supplies of water)''.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss Promoter's amendment No. 2.

Andrew Stunell: I hope that this matter will not take up too much time.
 The amendments relate to amendments being made to schedule 1 of the Building Act 1984. Paragraph 7 of that schedule contains a long list of 22 items that are illustrations of things about which regulations can be made. They are not exhaustive or mandatory. Indeed, some of them, such as telecommunications services, are not the subject of regulations, even at the moment. 
 The amendment therefore provides additional illustrations of the type of topics about which it would be appropriate to introduce regulations. In that sense, it is not enabling; it is somewhat less even than that. It is not controversial in its impact, but it sends a signal about issues, particularly in relation to sustainability, that should have the attention of the 
 Minister and the Department when they examine the need for regulation. Other items listed in my Bill relate to security. 
 The reasons for the changes are largely technical and relate to the need to ensure that the language is fully in order and reflects the scope of the powers and the topics covered by schedule 1 of the 1984 Act. I shall be more than happy to elaborate if the Committee wants me to do so.

Simon Thomas: I accept that these are technical amendments that apply not to regulations but to a list, as the hon. Gentleman stated. On recycling facilities, the Bill refers to ''recycling and composting''. The wording of his amendment suggests that composting is a type of recycling, which is not quite the case. Is there a particular reason for the difference in wording, and does it have any implications?

Andrew Stunell: In all honesty, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I am entirely in the hands of the parliamentary draftsman in such matters. There is no practical difference whatever, but for reasons well beyond me, it is necessary to change the original words in the Bill.

Phil Hope: I do not share the views of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the Government's performance in such matters or the longevity of my current role. I hope to refute those views for many months and years to come.
 Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 would, as a result of the amendment, include these additional words: 
''equipment for monitoring and measuring supplies of fuel, power or heat''.
 There needs to be a similar provision in respect of water to ensure that regulations can deal with such matters. The second amendment would revise the wording of the paragraphs in subsection (4) and clarify them for the avoidance of doubt. It would not increase or diminish in any way the powers under section 1. Parliamentary counsel has told us that that is how the measure should be drafted, so that is the way in which we will support it. 
 Paragraph (xxiib) would be removed on the grounds that the installation of security systems clearly falls within the item to be added to the list of measures relating to the security of buildings. The amendments are technical. Inspection matters are continuing requirements that are dealt with under section 2 of the Building Act 1984 and regulations for such requirements cannot be made under section 1, to which paragraph 7 of schedule 1 applies. I hope that those technical changes will improve the Bill and that the Committee will endorse them. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 2, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraphs (xxiib) to (xxiie) and insert— 
 '(xxiib) measures affecting the use of fuel or power, 
 (xxiic) equipment for monitoring and measuring supplies of fuel, power or heat, 
 (xxiid) recycling facilities (including facilities for composting),''.'.—[Mr. Stunell.]

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in
clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out from 'change' to end of line 19 and insert 'in prescribed circumstances.''.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss Promoter's amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Andrew Stunell: The amendment would change the wording of the Bill when it refers to
''sale, let or relet of the premises''.
 Apparently, there was a technical defect in my wording and it was not possible to produce regulations for only one of those categories; they would have covered all of them. More open wording allows differentiation of circumstances in which property has been occupied and in which change of occupancy has taken place. The amendment makes it possible to discriminate, distinguish or differentiate between such circumstances. It also makes it possible to include other circumstances that may not be fully and properly defined under the original wording of the Bill. 
 My basic point is that we need to look at the difficulties when only about 1 per cent. of the building stock is built each year and the other 99 per cent. remains at the same standard and level of sustainability as when it was built some time in the previous 600 years. However, the average age of our building stock is 50 or 60 years. These buildings need significant upgrading if we are going to make any serious impact on their carbon emissions in the coming decades, and the time for that to happen is clearly at the point when there is a change of ownership or a significant change of occupancy. That is the moment when it is possible to liberate capital to make investment and when the building may be empty, so it would be an appropriate time to carry out significant works. The amendment, in both its original and amended forms, is intended to facilitate regulations that deal with that. There are many issues relating to this amendment, some of which were raised on Second Reading, and I hope that we can discuss them in a moment. 
 Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are of a completely different nature. They ensure that the exemptions for Crown buildings of various sorts and for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority can be removed so that all those buildings become subject to the Building Act 1984 and the regulations. It was widely agreed on Second Reading and in discussions that I have had elsewhere that that was long overdue and very necessary, and the amendments make technical improvements on the wording to achieve that. 
 I suggest to the Committee that amendment No. 3 is probably the one on which people will want to comment, and I shall be happy to respond.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman has summed up the issues very well. Clause 2 (5) would allow building regulations to be applied upon change of occupancy precipitated
''by sale, let or relet of the building or parts of it''.
 That subsection is consistent with a requirement in the EU performance of buildings directive. When that 
 provision is implemented in January 2006, at the latest, it will also place duties on occupiers of existing buildings upon change of occupancy. Adding the words ''in prescribed circumstances'' adds flexibility in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, so that when we make regulations later we may choose, for example, to place new requirements on sale. 
 The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the other two amendments are technical amendments. Clause 2(6) amends section 44 of the Building Act 1984 to ensure that building regulations applying on a change of occupancy would apply equally to Crown buildings as to any other building. Amendment No. 4 simply clarifies the wording of the existing clause 2(6). 
 Amendment 5 is a technical amendment to reflect changes to sections 44 and 45 of the Building Act 1984. It makes it clear that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority should be treated in the same way as a Crown authority as far as building regulations are concerned. As new subsection (11) is added by the Bill to section 44, a consequent change needs to be made to section 45. 
 Really, I am only reiterating what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said. We support these amendments, and I hope that we can agree to them today. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Joan Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
clause 2, page 3, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(6A) After paragraph 8 insert— 
 ''8A.–(1) In making building regulations the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the historical or architectural interest of and preserving or enhancing the character of protected buildings. 
 (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, 'protected buildings' means— 
 (a) a listed building within the meaning given by section 1(5) (listing of buildings of special architectural or historic interest) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c.9); 
 (b) a building situated within an area designated as a conservation area under section 69 (designation of conservation areas) of that Act; 
 (c) a building situated within an area designated as a National Park under section 5(3) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (c.97); 
 (d) a building situated within any area designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty under section 82 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.37).''.'.
 I do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily on this amendment, but it is important that we flag up this issue. I will be very interested in the replies from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and the Minister. I have a personal interest in the matter, as I live in a listed building. That aside, I also hold the work of English Heritage in high regard, and I know that it supports this proposal. We heard just now about the rate of new house building, but we should consider the sense of place that we get from our historic buildings, and have regard to the way in which the new powers and duties imposed by the Bill will affect listed buildings. 
 When we examine the contents of the building regulations in clause 2, we should be aware of the fact that the regulations that deal with energy efficiency under part L recognise the need to conserve the special characteristics of historic buildings, and aim to improve energy efficiency without prejudicing the character of historic buildings or increasing the risk of long-term deterioration to their fabric or fittings. In practice, that means that building control officers are encouraged to consult the local authority conservation officer, and to find ways of meeting the energy efficiency objectives of part L without causing unnecessary damage to the historic interest of the building. 
 The amendment examines ways in which that aim can be continued in a wider context, by ensuring that any future building regulations similarly recognise the need to protect historic buildings from inappropriate alterations. It is important that we consider the possibility of including a new provision requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of preserving the character and architectural or historical interest of buildings. 
 The amendment is worded in such a way that it would not exempt such buildings from the need to comply with building regulations, but it would oblige the Government, in drafting those regulations, to take account of the impact that they would have on the historic environment, and to seek ways of mitigating any potential damage. The intention behind the amendment is not to follow part L in referring to locally listed buildings or buildings situated in world heritage sites. 
 I look forward to replies from the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and I understand that there is cross-party support for the amendment.

Sydney Chapman: It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hurst, for the second time.
 I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North on tabling the amendment. I support it, although I have one or two probing comments to make about it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on securing No. 1 in the ballot. I have only once been successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and that was back in 1970. I drew place No. 10, and thought that that was a harbinger of a glorious political career to come—that perhaps I would finish up in another No. 10. However, something went wrong on the way. 
 Although I support the amendment, I want to point out that it is rather sweeping. I do not want to incur a scintilla of wrath from English Heritage or from Cadw, its Welsh equivalent, but in (2)(a) it refers to listed buildings, and I understand that there are about 500,000 listed buildings—although I am not sure whether that figure refers to England or to England and Wales. 
 The scope of the amendment is not confined to the 500,000 listed buildings but applies to all buildings situated in a conservation area, of which there are quite a number. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that no fewer than three quarters of the buildings in 
 the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea are in conservation areas. The scope of the proposed provision is therefore rather sweeping, and moreover, it would also apply to buildings situated in the national parks and in areas of outstanding natural beauty. I would be very impressed if the Minister knew how many buildings it would cover. We have to be careful, although I will probably be satisfied, as the provision under the amendment would not exclude or force anything on the people who live in such buildings. It would just ask Secretary of State to have regard to preservation.

Gregory Barker: I am extremely sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, but my hon. Friend is right. For example, more than 80 per cent. of my constituency, which is a large, rural one in East Sussex, is designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. Under the amendment, the clause would cover a very large number of houses and buildings.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I fully support the objectives of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and his Bill, which is why I am here. However, we need to reach a sensible balance between protecting buildings that have historic and architectural interest or that are in sensitive environmental areas and the need to improve our total building stock in England and Wales.

John Hayes: I, too, am sympathetic to the amendment. It is vital that we strike the balance that my hon. Friend described, but I err towards that balance being struck in favour of beauty.
 Each of our countrymen has a right to be in touch with beauty. As well as the hierarchy of risk that I described, perhaps there should be an aesthetic hierarchy for the built environment. Too many of our aesthetically and historically significant buildings are still at risk. A look at the at-risk register is an alarming experience, because almost every constituency contains at least one building that is at risk and worthy of protection. That is true not just of buildings but of the wider environment. 
 The amendment refers to national parks and areas of particular environmental significance, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove should recognise that planning permissions have often ignored the human element, tearing communities apart in the service of spurious, usually modernist, principles. That has frequently been done irrespective of a proper consideration for the historic built environment. At a practical level, it has meant that a gulf has emerged between old and young, as people have been separated, which has prevented the collective wisdom of ages being transmitted across the generations. At a material level, it has led to the destruction of many fine townscapes, villagescapes and cityscapes, and their replacement by soulless buildings and developments. 
 I support the amendment because I believe that the balance needs to be recast in favour of a proper respect for our historic built environment and for the places where those buildings are situated. God preserve us from plastic windows and all the things that do so 
 much damage in conservation areas and historic villages, towns and cities. As I said earlier, functionality is a critical element in our consideration of buildings, and I respect the thought that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove gave to that in the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, there must be a balance, and as I have argued, it should be recast in favour of beauty. 
 Let me draw the Committee's attention to the important work done by no less a personage than the Prince of Wales, who is right about almost everything. He is right about the countryside, the environment, architecture, urban regeneration, the prayer book and almost everything else. He—

Alan Hurst: Order. The amendment does not refer to the prayer book.

John Hayes: I introduced the prayer book to lighten the Committee's consideration of what is a narrow and technical matter, but I am guided by you as ever, Mr. Hurst, so I will focus more specifically on the amendment.
 The Prince of Wales has made a compelling case for the importance of retaining human scale in design. He also fully understands the significance of the historic built environment and the effect that it has on our quality of life—on our sense of place and purpose, on who we are both individually and collectively. Communities and individuals are diminished if that environment is stripped away. 
 I support the amendment, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North on bringing the matter to our attention. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said sensible things, which is not typical for a Liberal Democrat. I hope that the Minister will embrace the amendment with enthusiasm—as well as with alacrity, which has been described as an important aspect of this morning's affairs.

Simon Thomas: Prince Charles is certainly right about genetically modified crops, but I beg to differ about his views on architecture.
 I am interested in the amendment. I support the reasoning and the principle behind it. When I was looking at the amendments last night I also had to hand the newly published Campaign for Real Ale inventory of historic pubs, which shows that my interest in this subject is rather prosaic. I was making plans to visit some wonderful pubs on my holidays. A lot of them are unlisted buildings, although they are wonderful examples of architecture. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we do not see awful plastic windows simply for energy efficiency reasons; it is designed to give sufficient flexibility to preserve historic environments. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that it is very widely drawn. It refers to areas of outstanding natural beauty. In my opinion, the whole of Wales is an area of outstanding beauty, full stop. Indeed, a lot of the country—and much of my constituency—is drawn in that way. A lot of my home town of Aberystwyth is a conservation area. I am 
 unsure whether the amendment could be used by future Governments—but not this Government, I am sure—as a way of preserving in aspic and of not improving our housing stock. We must be careful about that. 
 I can think of conservation areas and listed buildings in Aberystwyth where fa¢ades have been preserved but the interior has been ripped apart and totally changed. Is that the best approach to architecture? It might be better to have something modern and aesthetically pleasing—energy efficient buildings can be very aesthetically pleasing in their use of glass, wood and other natural materials. Sometimes it is nice to think that we could improve things and have new buildings that are energy efficient and sustainable, rather than just keeping the old buildings. We must strike the right balance. 
 I also want to be sure that such an amendment could not be used in the future to stop certain things—with regard not necessarily to listed buildings but to national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. Let us say I owned a building in such an area and wanted to make it more energy efficient but I also wanted to keep some of its character. One way of doing that would be to have solar panels, or to put up one of the new windmills that can be placed on the roof to provide electricity directly into the house. 
 I would not like such an amendment to be used to stop people doing innovative things even with historic buildings when those things do not change the fabric and nature of those buildings. The amendment could be a Trojan horse for people who seek to preserve forever the appearance and views of some parts of this country without having a thought about sustainable living. I know that that is not the hon. Lady's intention but I want to ensure that a future Government cannot use it in that way.

John Hayes: It is not about preserving buildings in aspic: it is about having regard to their character. The amendment makes it clear:
''In making regulations the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the historical or architectural interest''
 of buildings. Most historic buildings, such as churches, have evolved. There is a medieval church opposite my listed home in Lincolnshire that has changed many times in its history. Historic buildings evolve, but it is important that they should do so in a way that is sympathetic to their character. That is the mistake that we have made with modern buildings: it is the curse of Le Corbusier and all those other dreadful European people. It is not about preserving things in aspic; it is about having a regard to the historic environment, and changing in that context.

Simon Thomas: I am sort of in agreement with that point, and I accept that the amendment is not trying to achieve that. My purpose in asking that question of the Minister is to ensure that no future Government could use a clause such as this in that way. We should be clear about that before supporting the amendment.

Colin Challen: I rise partly in response to the official Opposition spokesman's reference to beauty: all hon. Members claim that our constituency is the most beautiful in the land, even when it is clear that that is not strictly true. However, it tends to be the case that hon. Members who represent beautiful constituencies also represent people who are somewhat better off, because they can afford to live in areas of outstanding natural beauty, or a similar place such as those mentioned in the amendment. My concern is that people who can afford to live in such an area are more likely to consume more energy, and possibly be less energy-efficient than many others. People who live in an urban area are less likely to be caught by the terms of this amendment than well-off people using lots of energy. I hope that when the Secretary of State has regard to the desirability of regulations under the amendment, if it is approved, he will bear that in mind. Nobody wants to see a Tudor house covered in solar panels, but there is a great obligation on people who are better off and who use more energy to make an effort to conserve it.

Phil Hope: The amendment has clearly excited considerable interest and discussion, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North on achieving that. We are aware that the characteristics of protected buildings could be seriously damaged if the building regulations took no notice of their historic character. When we make and apply regulations, we already pay regard to that. Building work in historic buildings is currently expected to comply with the requirements of building regulations unless it would prejudice the reason for which the buildings were protected. Where such prejudice would occur, local conservation officers and local building control officers discuss the position and decide on what should be done: that has worked well in the past.
 However, in general, the Government have no objection to the principle behind the amendment. The points made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about the scope of the amendment and the impact that it might have were well made. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings expressed his sympathy and made an eloquent defence of beauty around the country, but he can see that the amendment might have unintended consequences, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen). I am not sure whether we should join the hon. Member for Ceredigion for a pub crawl around the historic pubs of Wales. 
 We have no objection to the principle behind the amendment—having regard to the desirability of preserving the historic character of protected buildings. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that we should like to consider the wording further, including the placement of the provision within the Building Act 1984 before we can accept it, for many of the reasons already given by members of the Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will make his response shortly, but I hope that as we have agreed to consider it, my hon. Friend will withdraw the 
 amendment so that we can consider some of the concerns expressed and table a better amendment in future.

Andrew Stunell: As the Minister said, this amendment has excited more interest than almost anything else, which is good.
 I am extremely sympathetic to the view that we should not disrupt or damage our existing environment as we renew our building stock and develop and change our communities. The first part of the amendment, which sets out the general intention, is fine, but I have some concerns about what follows, which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet drew to our attention. In our wide-ranging discussion, a number of loose ends have been identified that need to be secured before we go too far. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that as well as a hierarchy of risk we should have a hierarchy of beauty. For buildings, that is the nightmare scenario. I do not know exactly what His Royal Highness said when the Royal Festival hall was listed, but we are now listing buildings that are 30 years old and from the carbuncle class. We need to be careful when we start talking about a hierarchy of beauty. The hon. Gentleman rather gave himself away when he said that far too many buildings seem to be built on modernist principles. Now, such buildings are listed, so they will be specifically included in the safeguarded group that he is trying to establish. Without elaborating further, I hope that the Committee will take on board the fact that there are difficulties. 
 I might frame some of the quotations used by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to put on my wall. The prospect of the Conservative party believing that the hierarchy of beauty should be more important than the market in developing property and communities in the future is interesting and entertaining. I would like to see how that idea is worked out in further initiatives from his party. 
 In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, if we can find a way of covering the broad principle of what she suggests, I would be open to that being included in my Bill. However, I hope that she considers that the widely sweeping inclusions in the second half of her amendment mean that it is not appropriate at this stage.

Joan Walley: I was not quite prepared for such a far-reaching debate. I can tell the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that in the 17 years that I have been in the House I have never kept out a private Member's Bill. I have no intention of preventing the Bill of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove from reaching the statute book. It is important that we make progress, and I am conscious of time.
 Our debate has ranged from Prince Charles to GM to CAMRA and so on. Our discussion has been not least about beauty, and I take the point that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As the mover of the amendment, I have the final say on the subject, and Stoke-on-Trent, North with its wonderful 
 architectural and industrial heritage is the last word on the subject of beauty. 
 On the amendment, I have listened carefully to the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I do not see why we could not have further dialogue on the issue as the Bill makes its way through this place and the Lords. I hope that there will be an opportunity for dialogue that will include the hon. Gentleman and the Government, and possibly English Heritage and myself. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion suggested, we are moving towards a new definition of beauty, which is always in the eye of the beholder, in terms of how it relates to new technologies and concepts of sustainability. Certainly, when considering the future of the House and the changes needed in terms of building regulations, we have found that there the whole concept of sustainability is, as yet, unexplored by English Heritage. If my amendment takes that further forward, I will be content. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 4, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 26, leave out from 'part),' to end of line 33 and insert 
 'this section applies, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the making of a change of occupants as it applies in relation to the carrying out of work.''.'.
 No. 5, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(8) In section 45(1) of that Act (application to United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority), for ''(10)'' substitute ''(11)''.'.—[Mr. Stunell.]
 Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Continuing requirements of

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Thomas: I hope that we approve clause 3. I wanted to note that we are, for the first time, extending duties to Crown buildings. That is a subject that interests the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I—and, indeed, several members of this Committee—sit. I am sure that they and the Minister will be aware that the Environmental Audit Committee has made some criticism in the past of the success or otherwise of Crown properties and buildings in achieving energy efficiency, buying renewable energy and improving environmental performance. I therefore welcome the opportunity provided by the clause to give greater scrutiny to what the Crown achieves in that regard.
 To go back to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, perhaps this is an opportunity to review what the House can achieve in terms of sustainability, too—but we have one decent building, of course. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Removal of exemptions and repeals

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in
clause 4, page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (2).

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Promoter's amendment No. 14. 
 Promoter's new clause 2—Registers of information and documents to be kept by local authorities. 
 Promoter's amendments Nos. 17 and 18.

Andrew Stunell: Amendments Nos. 6 and 14 are sort of Cox and Box amendments, taking something out of one place and putting it in another. The provision is in the Bill now, and will be there afterwards, but in a different place.
 New clause 2 will require local authorities to keep hold of information that they already have and make it available for inspection. The benefit is that, over time, there will be an accessible record of what alterations have been made to a building to improve its sustainability. Those alterations may well not be visible. If one goes to a house built in, say, the 1960s, and asks whether it has cavity wall insulation, one has to take the answer on trust. In due course—not immediately, and the provision will not apply retrospectively—there will be a way of tracking how our building stock is changing and developing. The new clause provides the mechanism for that. It will make open and accessible the service record of buildings that come to the attention of the local authority. I could take the Committee through the details of the various subsections, but bearing in mind the time, I will simply respond to any questions.

John Hayes: Given the time constraints, I shall ask my question straightforwardly.
 This seems to be a good principle, but I am worried about the significant burden on local authorities. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that no comprehensive register of local authority housing stock exists. Indeed, no central analysis of land use in Britain exists, which is extraordinary when one considers that that is such an important consideration in all kinds of ways. I am worried that by placing this burden on local authorities, he will create an intolerable extra expense. If the job were done properly, it would be a significant task that would require resources and perhaps reskilling and the employment of extra staff. This is a good principle, but has he made any assessment of the burden?

Andrew Stunell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's broad support for the proposal. He will see from the way in which it is drafted that there will be further consultation and detailed regulation, so it is not a done deal. My intention is that the clause should introduce a provision with modest implications for local authorities, which currently receive the information, although nothing else happens to it after work has been completed.

Brian Iddon: I think that I am right in saying that in the discussions in the Housing Bill Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman's party was against the principle of what I still call seller's packs, which are otherwise known as housing information packs. Would it not be simpler and less of a burden on local authorities for such information to be included in the HIPs? Has he considered that?

Andrew Stunell: I have considered all sorts of things, but I do not want to go beyond the scope of this debate and reopen the debate on seller's packs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my party does not resist the principle of seller's packs. The current proposal provides something that goes beyond domestic properties and would be available for a whole range of properties. In the context of alterations to the Building Act 1984, it is a worthwhile mechanism to ensure that the information collected by local authorities in pursuance of that Act is available for public inspection.

Colin Challen: Has the hon. Gentleman discussed this measure with the Local Government Association, and has the potential cost been assessed?

Andrew Stunell: I have not had discussions about this clause with the LGA, although I understand that it gives general assent to the proposals. The Minister may be able to respond to that, but I cannot do so, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman's underlying point. It is important that we do not impose uncosted burdens on local authorities. I feel that strongly with my own local authority background. I am a stern critic of Government unloading functions and expenses on to authorities and not providing the means to pay for them. Although I do not exactly ask him to take it on trust, I hope that he will understand that I am on his side with regard to not imposing burdens on local authorities.

Phil Hope: First, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that this technical amendment would shift the provision in clause 4 to clause 10. That move is necessary to cater for repeals and revocations stemming from new clause 2 on local authority registers that do not depend on clause 4.
 I welcome the power that would be provided under new clause 2. I say to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell that this is an enabling provision that has been drafted in flexible terms. Any proposed use of the new power would be subject to thorough consultation, regulatory impact analysis and the rules on new burdens for local authorities. However, I should say that the new clause and regulations made under it would not affect the numbers and descriptions of notices, certificates, and so on given to or by local authorities. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, that is essentially information that a local authority collects. 
 The principle that the public should have easy access to a register of key information about building control process has been established in legislation since the Building Act 1984 took effect. Section 56 of that Act, in part II, provides for public registers for the 
 purposes of building control by private sector approved inspectors. The section does not provide for registers relating to local authorities' own building control activity. That may have been due to issues of scope, time constraints or an expectation that local authorities would keep user-friendly public registers of information about their own building control work on a voluntary basis. 
 As it is, people increasingly expect to be able to check whether work done to the property that they are buying or have bought was done in accordance with the correct building control processes. Conveyancers, for example, look increasingly for such documentation. People wishing to make alterations to a property that they have bought may want to look at plans of their property. The new registers would help to respond to those needs. 
 On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, registers under the clause would be of value for the purposes of the home information packs provided for in the Housing Bill. We envisage that such packs would include copies of any certificate relating to the construction or alteration of the property issued under the 1984 Act. 
 This is an enabling power; there will be thorough consultation on the regulatory impact assessment, and particularly on the burdens to local authorities.

David Kidney: I spotted that registers already exist under section 56 of the 1984 Act, so I was not surprised to hear what the Minister said about that. However, he then said that the issue was about the local authorities' functions and that they would be added to the register as a result of the amendment.
 Those comments set me thinking. Under building regulations, local authorities do not do all the inspections any more; many of them have been subcontracted to National House Building Council inspectors. I wonder whether the measure catches all the activity that he says that consumers will want.

Phil Hope: I can assure my hon. Friend, who makes a good point, that there would be no exceptions for people carrying out those functions.

David Kidney: In that case, the worry that others have expressed about the burdens imposed by the clause have some validity. Will not the Minister have to say that he will be very cautious in consulting about the matter in the future?

Phil Hope: This is an enabling power, and we think that it is right that people should have user-friendly access to information. However, the regulations need to be well drafted; there should be full consultation and a full impact assessment. The new burdens that might be imposed on private and public sector providers should be considered. All those things will happen, but the important thing is that the clause provides us with the powers to undertake those regulations in the future.

Andrew Stunell: The Minister has put many caveats around the clause, which is quite proper. However, as I said earlier, the Bill provides some enabling powers, but it does not prescribe exactly what should happen. There is a further consultative loop, a further
 regulatory assessment and a further opportunity for the House to consider regulation. We are some way away from having something in place, and we need to consider the transparency of the information that is being collected.
 I say to the hon. Member for Stafford that ultimately there may or may not be some additional cost. None the less, if the Bill is implemented in the way that I envisage, it will not result in the collection of more information. However, the information that is collected by the proper person under clause 6 will be more reliable and therefore more valuable for the purposes of subsequent inspection by prospective purchasers or building owners as a track record of what has been done. I hope that the Committee will feel that, on balance, the amendment is a valuable addition to the Bill and that it will support it. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Secretary of State to report on building stock

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
clause 5, page 5, line 27, at end insert— 
 '(ca) proposals considered by the Secretary of State during the period for the setting of targets for any of those purposes in relation to— 
 (i) buildings in England and Wales; or 
 (ii) services, fittings or equipment provided in or in connection with such buildings;'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss Promoter's amendments Nos. 8 and 9, and Government amendment No. 20.

Andrew Stunell: We are now in deeper water. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are designed to ensure that the proposals in the Bill are technically competent, and do not plant any real seeds of controversy. Amendment No. 9 constitutes a response to the criticism that was made of the wording in the Bill on Second Reading and that the Minister and his officials, in the kindest possible way, somewhat reinforced.
 The criticism was that there would be significant difficulty in establishing how many buildings there are in the country. I twisted and turned on this one and tried to find a Department somewhere that knew the answer to that apparently simple question, but the fact is that we do not know the answer. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that it was odd that we do not have a record of land use, but we are a long way from that. We do not know how many buildings we have, never mind what we use the land for. Unfortunately, my brave attempt at coming up with the right provision, as drafted in the Bill, is not capable of practical implementation for want of that information. The only way to obtain the information would be to introduce something that I understand the hon. Gentleman might be in favour of, which is thorough registration of all land and buildings and proper documentation of that. However, the cost, time and trouble that would be involved in achieving that 
 would be wholly disproportionate to the intention of the clause, so amendment No. 9 represents my efforts to simplify it. 
 The Minister will speak shortly to Government amendment No. 20, which will delete the provision on the second of the reports that are called for in the Bill—the report relating to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. I am bitterly disappointed that that amendment was tabled, but those who heard me speak on Second Reading will understand that I shall not resist it, although I hope to have an opportunity to respond to some of the points that the Minister may make.

Phil Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman: he has put the point well. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are technical. Amendment No. 7 moves the proposed requirement in clause 5(2)(e) to the list of matters that the report must deal with in clause 5(2), and alters the wording to accord with that in the Building Act 1984. Amendment No. 8 is consequential on that.
 Amendment No. 9 is designed to confine the estimate of the numbers of different types of building in clause 5(3) to an estimate of the number of dwellings in England and Wales. That is the only figure that is readily available without a huge and costly exercise to count other types of building. The Government could not justify such an exercise for the purpose of a report to Parliament. 
 I shall not go through the details now, except to say that reference was made on Second Reading to the possibility of using the DEFRA stock model to provide a figure for other buildings, which we do not count at all, whether they are sheds, garages, electricity substations or whatever. We considered that possibility further, because I talked about it on Second Reading and in relation to the money resolution, but we decided that it could not provide a figure equivalent to that for dwellings. The model is based on hereditaments, not buildings, and any figure derived from it using a modelling process could not be relied on to provide comparisons with the figure for dwellings in order to perform the task that the hon. Gentleman wants to do, which is to monitor the progress of sustainability in the building stock. That is why we cannot proceed with the proposal, as he acknowledges. 
 On amendment No. 20, the hon. Gentleman is right that we cannot support the requirement in the Bill, and we know that he has worked hard to try to find an acceptable solution. We see no need for clause 5(4) to (6), as the 2000 Act already requires reports on progress from time to time. I understand that DEFRA has undertaken to produce an annual report covering, at least to some degree, the matters mentioned in clause 5(5). I hope that that is of some comfort to him in realising what we can and cannot do. 
 Subsections (4) to (6) are also defective because they assume that fuel poverty can be eradicated through energy efficiency measures alone. Most of us recognise that, although that plays an important part, it is not 
 the only measure required. Fuel poverty is at least as dependent on the income of those living in the home and on fuel prices. It would not make sense to report on only one of those factors. Therefore I hope that subsections (4) to (6) will be removed from the Bill, as per my amendment.

John Hayes: Briefly, on the point of fuel poverty, it is important to point out—I assume that the Minister made an unintentional error—that fuel poverty is about the proportion of income spent on alleviating problems associated with poor heating and ventilation. There is an issue about total income and poverty, and there is a relationship between absolute poverty and fuel poverty, but I do not want the Committee to be deluded into believing that fuel poverty is something that it is not. Fuel poverty is about the proportion of income allocated to heating and ventilating a home.
 Although the Minister is not entirely wrong in saying that fuel poverty cannot be solved solely by changes to building, I think that the original intention of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove was important in terms of a proper focus on warm homes and on renewed efforts to deal with issues such as insulation and ensuring that buildings are constructed and adapted in a way that maintains the maximum opportunity for warmth. It is important that the Committee does not continue without putting those points on the record. 
 Incidentally, I acknowledge what the Minister said about the register of housing. There have been two studies of land use—one in the 1930s and the other in the 1960s—which were comprehensive and conducted independently of Government. If there is to be a sensible planning policy, we ought reconsider that subject. I will say no more because now is not the time to debate that.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for his words of slight comfort about the annual report from DEFRA. I have seen the reports that have so far been published and they are a long way short of being comprehensive and providing the information that would satisfy Members of Parliament that real progress is being made in relation to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. I will continue to press the Minister on the matter and I believe that many members of the Committee who share my concerns will also do so. However, as I indicated, I have already conceded the point and will leave it at that.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 8, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 38, leave out from 'materials' to end of line 44.
 No. 9, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 45, leave out from 'contain' to end of line 2 on page 6 and insert 
 'an estimate, as at the end of the period, of the number of dwellings in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Stunell.]
 No. 20, in 
clause 5, page 6, line 3, leave out subsections (4) to (6).—[Phil Hope.]
 Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Proper person

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in
clause 6, page 6, line 25, leave out from 'may' to end of line 29 and insert— 
 '(a) provide for requiring that, in prescribed circumstances, a person of a prescribed class or description is to give to a local authority or an approved inspector a certificate to the effect that the requirements of building regulations as to matters of a prescribed description are satisfied; 
 (b) provide for requiring that such certificates be given within such periods or at such times and in such forms as may be prescribed; 
 (c) provide that a local authority or an approved inspector is not to exercise or perform a prescribed power or duty unless— 
 (i) such a certificate has been given to them or him; or 
 (ii) such a certificate has been given to them or him and the certificate has been accepted by them or him; 
 (d) make provision as to— 
 (i) the acceptance of such certificates by local authorities and approved inspectors; and 
 (ii) other steps to be taken by local authorities or approved inspectors in connection with such certificates.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Promoter's amendments Nos. 11 to 13. 
 Promoter's new clause 1—Management of works.

Andrew Stunell: In practical terms, amendments Nos. 10 to 13 are technical ways of achieving what is in the Bill. On Second Reading, I said that clause 6 would be improved—that it would be made more comprehensible and that legally correct words would be added. That is what these changes do.
 New clause 1 introduces another tool to ensure that the regulations that are in place are carried out on building sites. The original measure puts in place a proper person. The new clause allows the power to be delegated. On major building sites where there is a contract manager who is the proper person there may be many specialist subcontractors working on heating, ventilation, electricity and water, or contractors with the same skills working on different parts of the project. The new clause simply allows the proper person function to be cascaded down to a specialist supervisor or a clerk of works for a particular part of the work, so that there is a chain of command or responsibility. That reduces opportunities for buck passing. The man in the cabin cannot say, ''Well, that was Joe,'' or, ''That was my day off.'' The new clause completes the link that was introduced by the initial measure by allowing a second tier of responsibility to be devolved in appropriate cases.

Phil Hope: Amendment No. 10 changes clause 6, which amends the Building Act 1984. It provides for a new sort of certificate to be given to the building control body by
''a person of a prescribed class or description''.
 It is an enabling measure. The details are left out so that they can be set down in regulations after the usual processes of consultation and regulatory impact assessment. 
 The new power might be used to create a new sort of certificate to be given to the building control body—a local authority or a private sector approved inspector—by the builder or the main contractor. It might be a certificate to the effect that the project is complete and complies with the regulations. At present, there is no requirement in building work—subject to the normal building control procedures—for a certificate from the builder's side that declares that the work complies. New subsection (4)(a) allows us to require such certificates. That will have a salutary effect and serve as a powerful reminder to builders of their existing legal responsibilities to make their building work comply with the technical requirements of the building regulations. 
 The hon. Gentleman has covered several detailed points very well. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are consequential. I will make a final key point: amendment No. 12 amends section 52 of the Building Act 1984 to make it clear that an approved inspector should cancel the initial notice if there is a procedural contravention of the building regulations, such as a failure to provide a new sort of certificate, and the person responsible has not put right the contravention after due warning. 
 The hon. Gentleman described the changes in the amendments very well, and we support them. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 11, in 
clause 6, page 6, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
 No. 12, in 
clause 6, page 6, line 37, at end insert— 
 '(1A) In section 47(1) of that Act (giving of initial notices) after ''giving'' insert ''and receiving''. 
 (1B) In section 52(2) of that Act (cancellation of initial notice for contravention of building regulations)— 
 (a) in paragraph (a) after ''work'' insert ''or intending to carry out the work''; 
 (b) in paragraph (b) for the words from ''that person'' onwards substitute ''the prescribed steps are not taken by the person who, in accordance with building regulations, is required to take them''.'.
 No. 13, in 
clause 6, page 6, line 42, leave out '4A(1)'and insert '4A(1)(a) or (b)'.—[Mr. Stunell.]
 Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till Tuesday 9 March at half-past Nine o'clock.